MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1995508789 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2014.08.010

Plaidoyer Pour Une amélioration du système de santè québécois

2014· letter· fr· W1995508789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucie Tremblay, Alexis Rheault

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2014
Typeletter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À la lumière d'un article récemment publié par Colin Goodfellow dans lequel ce dernier se questionne sur l'organisation des services de santé en Ontario, Lucie Tremblay et Alexis Rheault posent les bases d'une réflexion générale sur ce que devrait être le système de santé québécois. Pour ce faire, les deux auteurs rappellent l'historique du système de santé du Québec afin de proposer des solutions novatrices aux problèmes soulevés par l'intégration clinique et structurelle, le rôle des infirmières et le mode de financement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0280.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management Forum→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→